Attenborough v WA

[2005] WASCA 132

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Discount for guilty plea
4. › Fast-track plea
5. › Whether sentencing judge failed to apply statutory discount or state reduction
6. › Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 8(4)
7. › Sentencing Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2003 (WA), Sch 1, cl 2(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Suspended sentence
4. › Approach to consideration of suspended sentence option
5. › Whether sentencing judge reversed statutory process
6. › Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Instinctive synthesis
4. › Whether requirement to state reduction for mitigating factor conflicts with instinctive synthesis
5. › Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 8(4)

Quick Take

Section 8(4) of the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) requires a sentencing judge to state the fact that a reduction has been made for a mitigating factor such as a guilty plea, though not the quantum of the reduction. This requirement is compatible with the instinctive synthesis approach to sentencing endorsed by the High Court in Markarian v The Queen. Failure to state the reduction, or treating a guilty plea as relevant only to parole eligibility rather than as a sentence reduction, constitutes appealable error.